This is part 5 of a 5 part series on “#datpostmil?” View: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The Problem with Preterism

Preterism is one of a number of different methods of prophetic interpretation that have been adopted and defended by various biblical intepreters. A little background may be helpful before I come to my discussion of preterism in particular.

These contrasting methods of biblical interpretation often are used to speak of how various schools interpret the Book of Revelation. Common today is the futurist school which thinks that the Revelation beginning with chapter 4 speaks of a future time of tribulation and what happens afterward. Common in past centuries and especially around the time of the Reformation and afterward is the historicist school which viewed the Revelation as a symbolic, consecutive, chronological account of the history of the gospel age and afterward. It is noteworthy that this view is associated with the notion that the institution of the papacy was (and is) the antichrist. Becoming more common today is the preterist school which see the Revelation as written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. It sees its prophecies as fulfilled mainly in that event and the events leading up to it. There is a close association historically and currently between Postmillennialism and Preterism.

Truth in advertising requires me to say that I hold none of these views. Rather, I hold to a fourth view which may be called idealism. Though idealism is sometimes associated with a liberal approach to the Revelation, I hold to a redemptive-historical, modified form of idealism which sees the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as cycling through various apocalyptic pictures of the gospel age and what follows.

Each of these views has also been applied by the various schools to other of the prophetic portions of Scripture. Here I am particularly concerned with the preterist method which has been applied to 2 Peter 3, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Matthew 24. John Owen, on the basis of preterism, thought that the new heavens and new earth of 2 Peter 3 was the gospel age. B. B. Warfield suspected that 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled in current events taking place in and around the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. J. Marcellus Kik and many others regard Matthew 24 as fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem.

One other piece of background to my discussion of preterism is this. What I have called “orthodox preterism” has an evil twin which I will call Hyper-preterism. The difference between the two views is important. Orthodox preterism believes that many or most prophecies were fulfilled in the past by the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem. Hyper-preterism believes that they all were. Thus, the Second Coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead took place in A. D. 70. Hyper-preterism is, in my view, straightforwardly heretical. I do not use the word lightly!

I want to focus on the interpretation of Matthew 24 and the Olivet Discourse by orthodox preterism. (I offer another and what I think is a superior interpretation of Matthew 24 in my book, More of the End Times Made Simple. It is based on the wonderful interpretation of the Olivet Discourse by John Murray in the second volume of His Collected Works which is entitled, “The Interadventual Period.” I hope you will read either Murray or me if you are attracted by the preterist interpretation.) The simple fact is that orthodox preterists take language like the following as referring to a figurative or spiritual coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem:

Matthew 24:27 “For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew 24:29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. 31 “And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

As I have said previously, they also commonly take the language of 2 Peter 3 and 2 Thessalonians 2 as referring to the same figurative or spiritual coming of Christ in A. D. 70. Yes, the reference to the new heavens and new earth brought in by the day of the Lord and Parousia of Christ in 2 Peter 3:3-13 refers according to preterists to this “coming” of Christ in A. D. 70. Yes, the Parousia which destroys the man of sin is also a reference to this same coming.

Here, then, is the problem with orthodox preterism. I do not see how orthodox preterism does not become hyper-preterism. There is a hermeneutical slippery slope here. If such language in such passages may refer to the coming of Christ in A. D. 70, what language teaching the Second Coming of Christ in the New Testament cannot (on the basis of the same hermeneutical principles) be explained away? Orthodox preterism is in constant danger of becoming its evil and heretical twin.

Do not misunderstand me. I know orthodox preterists do not come to this hyper-preterist conclusion. I know orthodox preterists do not want to come to this conclusion. I am simply saying that I do not know how orthodox preterists avoid coming to this conclusion. Their hermeneutic logically brings them there—if even against their will.

How is this relevant to Postmillennialism? It is relevant simply because many, if not most, Postmillennialists have adopted orthodox preterism as the hermeneutic most amenable to their position. I think they have been right to do so in the sense that the other views (with the possible exception of historicism) are not consistent with their views.

I believe that there have also been historicist Postmillennialists. This was probably Jonathan Edwards’ approach. The fact is that historicist interpretations of Revelation have been proven so frequently and wildly wrong in their interpretations that—at least for me—they have even less credibility than preterism. This is certainly true of the historicism of both Jonathan Edwards and Thomas Goodwin.

This is part 4 of a 5 part series on “#datpostmil?” View: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Does the Growth of the Kingdom Require Postmillennialism?

I mentioned in my last post that there are passages which the Postmillenialists might complain I am overlooking. Let me reassure my postmillennial friends that I am not. These passages are exactly the ones that make me an Optimistic Amillennialist. Let me explain.

I did not mention two of the seven, great Parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13. They are the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt. 13:31; Mark 4:31; Luke 13:19) and the Parable of the Leaven (Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:21). Both of them teach (and in my view teach clearly) that there will be a vast growth of the kingdom during the gospel age.

Similar are the implications of the promises and predictions Christ’s makes in Matthew 16:16-19 with regard to both the building of the church and the prevailing of the church against the gates of Hades. These are glorious and encouraging promises of the success of the gospel through the church and beginning in this age.

Other passages add to this emphasis on the progress of the kingdom. There is the Parable of the Seed Growing by Itself in Mark 4:26-29. There is also the suggestion in Ephesians 4:12-15 of the maturation of the church throughout the gospel age. Once more in Colossians 1:6 such growth is suggested.

Dr. White sees the inevitable progress of the kingdom in Psalm 2, Psalm 110, Isaiah 42, and 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. Let me affirm this. I see it in those passages too.

Clearly, Postmillennialists will not argue against my seeing growth and progress for the kingdom in these passages. They will wonder, however, how I avoid what they think are the inevitable, postmillennial implications of these passages. I think that this question is reasonable. I also think that it is answerable. What is that answer?

Both Grow Together

Jesus gives us the answer Himself and nowhere more clearly than in the Parable of the Wheat and Weeds.

Here is the telling of the parable …

²⁴ Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. ²⁵ “But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. ²⁶ “But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. ²⁷ “The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ ²⁸ “And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ ²⁹ “But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. ³⁰ ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”‘”

Here is the interpretation of the parable (which comes a few verses later) …

³⁶ Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”³⁷ And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, ³⁸ and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; ³⁹ and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. ⁴⁰ “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. ⁴¹ “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, ⁴² and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³ “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Jesus’s key statement is found in Matthew 13:30: “Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”‘” This is the answer of the Lord of the Harvest to a question of His servants. To their query whether they should hoe up the weeds that the enemy had sown, He replies that both wheat and weeds should be allowed to grow together until the harvest.

The error of the postmillennial use of all the growth and progress passages is here exposed. They assume that the growth of the wheat (the sons of the kingdom) during the gospel age means the withering of the weeds (the sons of the evil one). This assumption seems obvious to them, of course, but it is contrary to the teaching and assumption of Jesus. Jesus thinks that both good and evil will keep growing and grow together till the end of the age.

This view seems strange to us. This logic is contrary to our limited logic. There is, however, a deep truth in it. Evil gets worse just because good gets better. Good must get better in response to the putrid evil of the wicked; or it will be overcome.

This growth of both good and evil together is also the implication of other passages. Allow me to set aside for now the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24. I will deal with it later. Let me say only what seems obvious to me and many Christians. Somehow this passage speaks not just of the Destruction of Jerusalem, but also of the Second Coming of Christ and the whole “inter-adventual” period or gospel age. Understood in this way, the passage teaches that the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world in the midst of the darkness, chaos, and turmoil of the present age predicted in Matthew 24:1-36. Matthew 24:14 reads: “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.”

Similarly, when Christ is on the throne, He has ascended in Revelation 5 and breaks the seals on the book which contains the end of the world. There is once more the progress of the gospel in the midst of trouble and chaos.

Though I make no claim to understand everything in the Book of Revelation, it seems to me that Revelation 5 and 6 do speak clearly of the enthronement of Christ at His resurrection. When in Revelation 6 you have the breaking of the seals on the book, it seems clearly to speak of the characteristics of this age. Yes, there is in the first seal Christ on the white horse winning gospel victories throughout the world, but these gospel victories do not appear to create a golden age in the period between Christ’s first and second advents. Rather, these gospel victories are gained in the midst of turmoil and distress. The second seal looses war on the world (Rev. 6:4). The third seal looses famine on the world (Rev. 6:5-6). The fourth seal looses mass death on the world (Rev. 6:7-8). The fifth seal returns to the plight of the saints in the gospel age and speaks of the reality of martyrdom (Rev. 6:9-11). The sixth seal speaks of the impending judgment which hangs over this age. The seventh seal brings us to the seven trumpets which warn of judgment and the next picture of this age. In the interim between the sixth and seventh seals there is perhaps a picture of the gathering of the elect, but there is no picture of millennial glory during or at the end of the gospel age.

Yes, the gospel wins victories throughout the world, but this does not create a golden age. Those victories are won in a day of darkness and difficulty.

Get Off the Millennial Teeter-totter

Postmillennialism is actually guilty of the equal and opposite error committed by Premillennialism and Pessimillennialism. Premillennialists look at all the passages that speak of the growth and progress of evil during this age. Evil men will get worse (2 Timothy 3:13). The mystery of iniquity already works (2 Thessalonians 2:7). The time of tribulation and the antichrist are coming at the very end of the age (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 8, 9; Revelation 20:9-10). They deduce from all this that dark days of apostasy are ahead for the church. They deduce from this that the church age will end in failure like all the other dispensations.

But they are wrong to think this way. The growth and progress of evil does not mean that the good seed stops growing or withers. Both grow together until the harvest!

But in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason the postmillennial deduction from the passages that teach growth and progress is wrong. The growth of the good seed does not mean the withering of the evil seed until a golden age of peace, prosperity, and righteousness dominates the world. Both grow together until the harvest!

Yes, the kingdom will one day rule the world. Yes, Christ will defeat all of His enemies. But this final victory awaits His return. Only then is the last enemy destroyed. The teaching of the Bible is the progress of the kingdom in this age and the triumph of the kingdom in the age to come. Both grow together until the harvest!

I am, then, an Optimistic Amillennialist. I am very optimistic about the progress of the gospel throughout the world. I am very optimistic about the church being built throughout the world. I am not optimistic about the world. It will suffer under the growing of the weeds until harvest comes. Then there will come a new world in which righteousness dwells, but not until then. Growth never brings harvest. Only harvest (and the glorious return of the Lord of the harvest) brings harvest.

What does the key passage—Revelation 20—actually teach about the millennium?

There is one and only one passage in the Bible which explicitly speaks of the millennium. It seems necessary, therefore, to ask what Revelation 20 actually teaches about it. Of course, it is true that this passage has been a crux of New Testament interpretation for 2000 years.

I think, however, that I may assume that my postmillennial friends with me reject the literalism and weirdness of the premillennial interpretation of this passage in all its forms. I think they must also agree with me that this passage is crucial for our understanding of the millennium. Therefore, we must ask, Is the millennium here a golden age at the end of the gospel age?

It is obvious to me that the thousand years is not a period at the end of the gospel age. It is the gospel age. The thousand years begins with the binding of Satan. Once the literalism of Premillennialists is rejected; once the necessity of interpreting this passage according to the analogy of Scripture is accepted; then it is obvious that this binding of Satan took place at the time of Christ’s first advent and resurrection. Matthew 12:28-29; Luke 10:17-19; John 12:31-32; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8; Revelation 12:10-15—all of these passages lead to the interpretation which sees the binding of Satan as beginning the gospel age and the spread of the gospel throughout the world.

On the other hand, there is no parallel passage which suggests a future, interim binding of Satan. Let me say that again. There are zero passages in the whole Bible that suggest that in the future, for a temporary period of time, Satan will be bound. On the other hand, there are seven clear passages which teach that he was bound by the events of Christ’s first advent. And this observation spells doom for both Premillenialism and Postmillennialism.

In particular, this is true for Postmillennialism. This passage teaches that the millennium began with Christ’s resurrection and is not a future golden age before Christ comes back. Whatever the millennium is, the fact is that we have been in it for 2000 years! This is not the postmillennial understanding of the matter.

Yet further, I noticed that at the end of the millennium of Revelation 20 there was a little season characterized by the loosing of Satan and a worldwide assault on the church. I find this also in 2 Thessalonians 2. There are a number of interesting parallels between 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 20. Both speak of the restraint of evil for a period. Both speak of the loosing of evil on the world at a future time just before the Second Coming of Christ. Both speak of this time as a period of terrible deception. Both speak of the final destruction of evil by Christ at His Second Coming. Thus, in both passages, there is a little season of trouble for the church. During this little season, the antichrist appears in the midst of a great rebellion or apostasy against God. This ending of the gospel age in a global persecution of the church under the man of lawlessness seems clear in these passages. It does not, it seems to me, comport with the picture of the future painted by Postmillennialists.

Now, at this point, I am quite certain that, if my postmillennial friends are still reading, they have some questions they want to ask me. I have implied something other than a preterist understanding of Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2. I will take that up in my next post where I discuss the problems with Orthodox Preterism.

This is part 3 of a 5 part series on “#datpostmil?” View: Part 1, Part 2 

The Postmillennial Doctrine of Bifurcation—Two ages in the Gospel Age?

Let me pursue an aspect of the problem with Postmillennialism which I raised in my last post. I think, though my memory is dim with age, that this had a lot to do with my “apostasy” from Postmillennialism of my college years. Key to systematic Postmillennialism is the notion that we are not in the millennium, but that some day before Christ’s return the church will experience millennial glory. The persecution and humiliation that has been the portion of the church for the last 2000 years will be replaced by the triumph and glory of the millennial reign of the church on earth. Thus, there is an essential bifurcation of the gospel age into very different eras. This is not only necessary to Postmillennialism, but also it is its distinguishing mark.

 The Absence of Evidence for the Doctrine of Bifurcation

But in my desire to be postmillennial in my early years as a Reformed Christian here was the problem I encountered. I could not find any good evidence for such a bifurcation of the gospel age in the New Testament.

I was rather confronted with phrases and verses that might possibly imply such a bifurcation, but I could find no clear evidence.

Somewhere I saw Postmillennialism read into James 5:7: “Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains.” But the next verse does not sound postmillennial. James 5:8 speaks of Christ’s near coming: “You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.”

There is, of course, Romans 11. But again I encountered difficulty. First, even if you think a mass conversion of the Jewish nation in the future is taught there, that seems to be the last event before the Second Coming and not the beginning of the millennium. Romans 11:25-26 so interpreted seem to make the conversion of the Jews to follow the coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles and not to precede it. Second, I knew that many reputable Reformed theologians beginning with Calvin himself wholly rejected such a view. Gradually, I came to accept a version of Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 11.

 The Presence of Evidence against Bifurcation

Against this meagre evidence, I found many passages which taught clearly—it seemed to me—that the gospel age was not two eras but a single era with the same characteristics throughout.

I was impressed, of course, by the evidence presented in the last blog post that this age continues to be an evil age till its end. It is not an evil age for a while but then a good and golden age for a long era before Christ’s return.

The Parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13 also taught me that the gospel age was a single era with a single character. They surely implied the same mixed and troubled character of this age. The Parable of the Soils taught that the gospel in this age would always encounter four types of soil. Only one of them would bear fruit. The Parables of the Wheat and Weeds taught that wheat and weeds would grow together until the end of the age. The Parables of the Treasure Hidden in the Field and the Pearl of Great Price both taught that great sacrifice (selling all that you have) would always be necessary in this age to have the kingdom.

The bottom-line for me was this. I saw no clear evidence for the bifurcation of the gospel age. On the other hand, I saw persuasive evidence against the postmillennial doctrine of bifurcation.

I anticipate that my postmillennial readers will feel that I have overlooked an important feature of the New Testament in what I have said so far. They want to ask, What about the New Testament teaching about the growth and progress of the gospel during this age? Does this not lead directly to postmillennial hopes and convictions? I will take up this teaching next time and show why it does not lead to Postmillennialism, but rather to Optimistic Amillennialism.

This is part 2 of a 5 part series on “#datpostmil?” View Part 1

A Present Evil Age!

 I ended my first post in this friendly response to James White by arguing that it is the notion of a distinct, future millennial period before the return of Christ in glory that is the distinguishing feature of what I will call systematic Postmillennialism. It is this future golden age before Christ returns and in which we do not already live that distinguishes Postmillennialism from Amillennialism. Subtract this idea from Postmillennialism and you might as well call all of us optimistic Amillennialists postmillennial. It is furthermore this idea of a distinct, future golden age which has usually distinguished Postmillennialists in the past in the present.

Perhaps it is good to insert here a confession. I once wanted to be postmil. I tried to be postmil. I had read Boettner’s The Millennium. I also loved John Murray’s interpretation of Romans 11 in which he argued for a future mass conversion of physical Israelites. This view of Murray’s does not mean that he or anyone else is necessarily postmil. One could hold it—in my opinion—in an optimistic amillennial scheme. I recall that some postmils actually reject the idea of a future mass conversion of the Jews. Yet, such a view of Romans 11 does certainly fit well within the postmillennial scheme.

It did not take me long after my college years to depart from my early postmil sympathies. I suppose there were many reasons for this “sad” departure. I will attempt to describe them in this and future posts. But as I look at things now, it is this bifurcation of the present gospel age into two radically different periods which is necessary to systematic Postmillennialism which I see as a premier reason to reject Postmillennialism. It simply does not fit with the two-age schema of biblical prophecy. I argue in End Times Made Simple for the prominence of this two-age scheme in the New Testament. I see it as the beating heart of biblical eschatology. And the simple truth is that this scheme is inconsistent with systematic Postmillennialism. Let me explain why.

Of the very many references to the two-age scheme in the New Testament Luke 20:34-36 is perhaps its classic, biblical statement. Here is what that passage says:

³⁴ Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, ³⁵ but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; ³⁶ for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

It is clear from Jesus’ words that the history of the world is divided into two ages. Jesus calls them here “this age” and “that age.” Elsewhere the New Testament speaks of that age as “the age to come” (Matt. 12:32; Mk. 10:30; Lk. 18:30; Eph. 1:21; Heb. 6:5). It is also clear these two ages are radically different. Four major differences are mentioned in this key passage. (1) The sons of this age marry but the sons of that age do not. (2) The sons of this age die but the sons of that age do not. (3) In this age, the sons of this age and the sons of God are mixed together in the world but in the age to come there are only sons of God. (4) The sons of this age are natural men but the sons of the age to come are sons of the resurrection.

The New Testament makes clear that the age to come begins with the resurrection of the righteous and that the resurrection of the righteous begins with the Second Coming of Christ. Matthew 13:37-43 is closely parallel and makes this exact point.

³⁷ And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, ³⁸ and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; ³⁹ and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. ⁴⁰ “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. ⁴¹ “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, ⁴² and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³ “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Here is the same viewpoint as that found in Luke 20. In this age, good and evil men are mixed together. At the harvest or judgment, they are separated. Then, in the coming age, there are only righteous men in the state of resurrection. Verse 43 refers to the resurrection as its quotation of Daniel 12:1-3 makes clear.

But my point is this. What event brings about the new age and the kingdom of the Father? It is the Second Coming in glory. Until then this present, natural age continues with good and evil men mixed together in the world. What this passage teaches the New Testament everywhere teaches. This age ends and the new age comes with the Second Coming of Christ and the resurrection of the righteous which is always associated with it. Cf. Matthew 24:3; 28:20; Luke 18:30; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; Titus 2:12-13.

It is in this two-age scheme that we have the backbone of biblical eschatology. In my book I argue that this scheme makes Premillennialism impossible. Premillennialists can neither place Revelation 20 (as they interpret it) in this age (which ends with the resurrection and Second Coming of Christ); nor can they place their version of the millennium in the age to come (since their millennium is not a perfected condition with only resurrected and righteous men inhabiting that age of the world).

But my point here is that systematic Postmillennialism also does not fit with this two-age scheme of the New Testament. It is not just that there are only two ages and not the three which systematic Postmillennialism (substantially) presumes. No, there is a much deeper problem.

What is it? It is the way that the New Testament describes this age in other places. We already know that it is an age in which good and evil men are mixed together till the end. But when the New Testament speaks of the characteristics of this age it raises significant stumbling blocks for Postmillennialism. Why? It is because it teaches that this age is and always will be an evil age. 

The proposition here is, in other words, that the basic character of this age will always be morally evil.  A number of the key passages where the two-age terminology is used require this conclusion. Luke 16:8 speaks of evil men as the sons of this age and contrasts them with the sons of light.  Mark 10:30 teaches that those who have left all for Christ must always expect persecutions in this age.  As long as this age lasts, then, persecution will be the lot of the true Christian.  Romans 12:2 is Paul’s exhortation to Christians not to be conformed to this age. Such language plainly assumes that this age will always be an evil age.  2 Corinthians 4:4 asserts that Satan is “the god of this age”.  It is, therefore, necessarily evil.  Galatians 1:4 is Paul’s description of this age as a “present, evil age” from which the elect are to be delivered by the death of Christ. Ephesians 2:2 describes the former, wicked lives of Ephesian believers as a “walking according to the age of this world.”

Such passages as these presuppose and assume that this present age is, and always will be, evil.  If this were not the case, there might come a day when the persecution of Christians would cease, when it would not be wrong to be conformed to this age, when Satan would not be its god, when Paul’s description of it as evil would cease to be true, and when one could walk according to the age of this world and be righteous.  All this would defy, however, the plain implications of these passages. 

 Such passages confront postmillennialism with a serious difficulty.  Postmillennialism teaches that good triumphs over evil in this age.  Righteousness and peace in this age overcome unrighteousness and hatred according to postmillennialism.  Postmillennialists may qualify their teaching by saying that they do not believe that this age will become perfect or that every single man will be converted.  Still and nonetheless, their contention remains that, in substance, good triumphs over evil in this age.  When the Bible, however, assumes that this age (that ends, as we have seen, only with the Second Coming of Christ) is and always will be evil, it teaches something that pointedly contradicts Postmillennialism. Let me conclude by trying to illustrate this with a diagram.

One more thing is necessary to say. I agree with Dr. White when he affirms that God will bring down everything that exalts itself against Christ. I agree with him that many of these defeats will come during this age. But the defeat of these enemies does not mean that a millennial golden age arises in their place. For 70 years the anti-God Communist ideology prevailed in the Soviet Union filling the world with terror. Christ brought the Soviet Union down! But this did not mean that a new Reformed and Evangelical Russia would rise in its place. Rather another dragon emerged out of the sea of this fallen world. The corrupt oligarchy led by Vladimir Putin came to power. My point is that the victories of Christ in this age are real, but they do not mean that a golden age is coming before the King Himself returns. They only mean that God preserves His people for the spread of His gospel and the building of the church. As Peter said in 2 Peter 2:9, “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment.” Messianic judgments are real and history-altering during this age, but they do not mean a millennium is coming before Christ returns in glory.

This is part 1 of a 5 part series on “#datpostmil?” View: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Post-Logue

A Friendly (and Reluctant) Response to James White (and All My Postmillennial Friends)

Reformed Christians who follow James White have been keeping the media buzzing recently with the news that, as of a couple weeks ago, he embraced Postmillennialism. You can hear his message on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlS4vmHgtWA.

I have been urged to respond to White. I do so in some ways quite reluctantly. James White has been a kind and useful friend to Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary of which I am President. More than that, he has been a highly influential force for the defense and spread of Reformed truth. Times I cannot number I have heard his name mentioned as one of the influences which brought our students to a Reformed way of thinking. I admire his ability to defend our faith in a debate context. Though I sometimes will take such a debate if I think it will serve the interests of truth, I am not a debater. But James White has that gift in great measure. I am thankful for it.

I am reluctant to respond to White on this subject for another reason. I have a number of other esteemed friends in the Reformed Baptist ministry who also embrace postmillennial views. I have no desire to offend or alienate those friends. I hope they do not take these blog posts as either offensive or as a sign of any alienation in my heart from them. They certainly are not so intended and mean no such thing.

Finally, I am reluctant to respond (and emphasize that it is a friendly response) because it seems to me that too many in our camp are ready to anathematize those with whom they disagree on differences that are well within the bounds of both the orthodoxy of the Confession and the Reformed tradition. I think that the postmillennial view of eschatology is within those bounds. You will find no anathemas here. You may find warnings against errors that it could lead to in its ripple effects. You may find warnings against some views often associated with Postmillennialism. But you will not find name-calling or anathemas in these posts.

But, of course, I have chosen to respond. No one is forcing me to do this. It is really a sense of obligation which makes me do so. It is a duty to the truth of God’s Word which (I hope) constrains me to write. It is the errors and ripple-effect dangers associated with postmillennial views that force me to write.

Something else moves me. I hope I have a sense for the dangers of eschatological loose-thinking honed by reading eschatology for many years. I fear that such loose-thinking will derail the progress made over the last several centuries in the church’s understanding of eschatology. Progress should be an idea that is attractive to Postmillennialists. Yes, I have to admit that I view Postmillennialism as loose-thinking.

What is Postmillennialism?

Before we start arguing eschatology, it is important that we state some clear definitions and make some careful distinctions. Let me begin by saying that I follow the common paradigm which distinguishes four major eschatological positions that are within the general bounds of orthodoxy. They are Dispensational Premillennialism, Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism.

Of course, by saying that they are all within the general bounds of orthodoxy, I do not at all mean that they are all equally correct or biblical. I only mean that, in my view, none of these views is per se heretical and outside the bounds of the Christian faith. There are views that are. The Liberal and Hyper-preterist denials of a future Second Coming are outside the bounds of orthodoxy and heretical, but the views I mentioned above are not outside the bounds.

And I must state another clarification, as well. I do not regard all these views as equally within the Reformed confessional tradition or as equally consistent with my own 1689 Baptist Confession. I happily grant confessional status to Postmillennialism and, of course, Amillennialism. Swallowing hard, I even grant it to Historic Premillennialism. I do not, however, regard Dispensationalism as consistent with confessional subscription. Leaving aside its views of prophecy, both its views of the law of God and the church of God contradict the Confession.

But all this brings me to a problem I have pointed out in my books on eschatology. It is a problem that simply has to be considered in the present context. Perhaps I am ill-informed, but the eschatological movement in his thinking to which James White confesses in his sermon is really a movement most recently, I think, from an amillennial view to a postmillennial perspective on eschatology. The problem is that in a certain sense Amillennialism is postmillennial.

What do I mean? Simply this. Both views believe that the visible and bodily return of Christ to the world takes place after the thousand years (or millennium) described in Revelation 20:1-10. Amillennialism is, then, postmillennial in its view of the return of Christ. This being the case—if Postmillennialism and Amillennialism are to be distinguished—another and different distinguishing feature must be found to differentiate them. Without such a clear distinction, the whole discussion will be fruitless. Whether Postmillennialism is the correct eschatological view surely depends on a clear definition of what it is—and especially what it is in contradistinction to Amillennialism.

Postmillennialism … Amillennialism: What Is the Difference?

I have said that any meaningful debate over the biblical merits of Postmillennialism as opposed to Amillennialism must assume a clear distinction between the two systems. I believe one exists. I hope now to make it clear.

But perhaps I must first tell you what it is not. I do not believe that the distinction is merely in one’s level of optimism about the church and its future. Postmillennialists make points by decrying the Pessimillennialists. It is true of Premillennialism, and especially Dispensationalism, that it has been horrendously and destructively pessimistic about the future of the church in this age. I imagine—at least it is my opinion—that there have been some Amillennialists that have also fallen into what may fairly be called Pessimillennialism.

But I think that there are many of us Amils who have not fallen into such a spirit of pessimism about the church. I happily describe myself as an “optimistic Amillennialist.” I am very optimistic about the future of the church. I want to say more about this in a future blog post. I should only add here that I do not think such optimism about the church entails optimism about the world in this age. The Bible teaches that it “lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19) during this age.

But optimistic Amillennialism is not the same as Postmillennialism. At least, I have never thought so. Why? Because no clear theological or prophetic distinction between Amillennialism and Postmillennialism can be achieved by a psychological assessment of how optimistic one is!

To get to a sound, theological distinction, let me point out an interesting thing about the term, millennium. This interesting ambiguity in the term may be seen in the Webster’s New World Dictionary. Under the entry on millennium it has three definitions:

1. A period of a thousand years 2.  In theology, the period during which Satan will be bound and Christ will reign on earth … Rev, 20:1-5 hence 3.  Any period of great happiness, peace, prosperity, etc. imagined golden age.

Do you see the double meaning of millennium? Like many words millennium has both a denotation and a connotation. Its denotation or plain meaning is simply a thousand years and beyond that the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20. Its connotation or “halo meaning” is that it speaks of a great golden age of happiness, peace, and prosperity (and we may add of righteousness).

Why is this important? It is important because Amillennialists are postmillennial with regard to the denotation of millennium, but they are not postmillennial with regard to the connotation of millennium. That is, we amils believe that Christ is coming back after the thousand years. We do not, however, believe that this thousand years is what the millenarians conceive it to be. It is not a great golden age of happiness, peace, prosperity, and righteousness in which such blessedness is the dominant tone of the world and in which evil is subdued under these things.

This brings us to a second and key distinguishing feature of Postmillennialism. This second key and crucial feature of Postmillennialism can be seen in this way. It is most obvious that the last 2000 years have not been such a golden age of righteousness, prosperity, and peace. Oh, of course, there have been great blessings bestowed on the church and even in common grace on the world! Certainly! But just glance at the 20^th Century of the Christian era and you will see that it is anything but a golden, millennial age. The names of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Pol Pot glare at us from the history books. The First World War, the Second World War, the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation, the rise of secularism, naturalism, and the dominion of evolutionary views in science contradict our millennial hopes. All these things, furthermore, were instrumental in destroying the rosy optimism of the Postmillennialism of an earlier age.

Yes, but the Postmil says, Christ will subdue these things and bring in the golden age before He returns. This is, of course, the postmillennial response to the contradiction of earlier postmillennial hopes. Despite earlier disappointments, a future is coming before the Second Coming of Christ which will bring the golden age long hoped for.

I know that this is the postmillennial reply. To this reply my response is … Exactly! Here we come to the distinguishing feature of Postmillennialism. To maintain its millennial hope for a golden age, of necessity, it must conceive of the gospel age—the period between Christ’s First and Second Advents—as divided into two distinct periods. The first period is the humiliation of the church. The second period is the triumph of the church. There is the time of the persecuted church and the time of the triumphant church. These are successive periods which characterize the gospel age.

Such a distinction has been foundational to the thinking of many Postmillenialists in the past. It is crucial to any clear distinction between Amil and Postmil today! But is it biblical? That is the question to which we must now turn in posts to come.

This is part 1 of a 5 part series.